The Colonial Newsletter, no. 95

US ISSN 0010-1443

LETT

P. 0. Box 4411

Volume 33, No. 3

Huntsville, Alabama 35815

J. C. Spllman, Editor

October, 1993

Serial No 95

From Coppers to Buttons

or

Were Benjamin and William Buell the Same Person?

New Research Provides the Answer!

Page 1389

The Current Location

of the

New Jersey WhaCsit

After Richard Picker, Where Did it Go?

Page 1394

More on that “Blank Planchet”

It’s a Coin!

Page 1395

Oh, What Tangled Webs We Mortals Weave...

The Story of the New Jersey Head Left Coppers

Sheriffs Documents Suggest a Surprising Conclusion

Page 1396

Ask the Editors

Additional Discussion plus Two New Questions

Page 1401

The Editorial Roundtable

New Reprint Available of
John Hull, A Builder of the Bay Colony
by Hermann FVederick Clarke

Page 1404

Sequential page 1388

Copyright ©1993 by The Colonial Newsletter Foundation, Inc.

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1389

FROM COPPERS TO BUTTONS

or

WERE BENJAMIN AND WILLIAM BUELL THE SAME PERSON?

by

Gaiy A. Trudgen: Endwell, NY
(RF-37C)

Current numismatic knowledge teaches that Abel Buell, mintmaster of the New Haven, Connecti-
cut mint, had two sons, Benjamin and William, who were also involved in the production of state
coppers. Benjamin is credited with minting Connecticut coppers, while William supposedly helped
produce Vermont coppers.

In the mid-nineteenth century, Abel Buell’s grandson, Abel Buell Moore, related the following story
about his Uncle William (1). He claimed that William fled his home town of New Haven,
Connecticut to East Rupert, Vermont to escape hostile Indians. The story goes that William had
procured a jug of aqua fortis (nitric acid) from a druggist and while returning to his home he was
accosted by some Indians. The Indians assumed his jug contained rum and insisted upon drinking
it. He tried to convince them that it wasn't rum, but one of the Indians grabbed the jug and
swallowed a portion of its contents. Because of his rash behavior, this Indian soon died. His
companions, however, wanted revenge and sought every opportunity to take William’s life. To
escape his assassins, William fled to the farm of his half sister, Mary Moore, In East Rupert,
Vermont.

Abel Buell Moore also claimed that when his Uncle William came to East Rupert he brought along
original “FUGIO CENT dies, which he had obtained from his father’s mint in New Haven.
Furthermore, Moore declared that these dies were used at the East Rupert mint, which had been
established in 1 785 by Reuben Harmon, Jr. and was located on William’s half sister’s farm. This
claim is doubtful since Harmon was authorized to coin only Vermont coppers and William was
probably too young (about 14 years old) to undertake the coinage himself. It is more likely that
William carried along a pair of central device punches made by his father, which the Rupert mint
then used to prepare the Vermont bust left style dies, known as Ryder 1 0 and 1 1 (dated 1786)
and Ryder 15 (dated 1787).

At this point, a synopsis of certain Buell family relationships may be helpful. First, Abel Buell Moore
was the sonof Grove and Mary Moore. Mary was thedaughterof Abel Buell and his first wife, Mary
Chittenden, whom he married in late 1762 (2). Abel had been apprenticed to his brother-in-law,
Ebenezer Chittenden , to learn the silversmith trade. Another brother-in-law, Thomas Chittenden,
became the first governor of Vermont in 1778. Abel and Mary’s daughter wedded Grove Moore,
also from New Haven, Connecticut, and they removed to East Rupert, Vermont in 1780 (3).
Second, Abel Buell’s first wife died in September 1 770 and he was remarried, on March 8, 1 771 ,
to Aletta DeVoe. William Buell was born to Abel and Aletta in New Haven in 1772, according to
the Buell family history (4).

William left behind very little record in Rupert, probably because he was young and “unattached.”
It seems likely that he would live with his half sister and brother-in-law, near the mint, although
a local history claims he lived south of the mint near the Dorset-Rupert town line (5). William did
not purchase land In Rupert. The only record he left appears in the Proprietors’ Clerk records
where, on June 30, 1 788, he filed a surveyor's report. In the report William states that he had
surveyed 1 7 acres of land for Reuben Harmon in the Town of Rupert on the original right of Judah Weeks.

Notes begin on page 1393

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER

Sequential page 1390

The information about Benjamin Buell comes from a committee appointed by the Connecticut
General Asserrtbly in January 1789 to investigate the conduct of the New Haven mint. The
committee filed a detailed report on the following April 9th. At the end of the report, the committee
stated that Abel Buell, who owned one-eighth share of the mint operation, had gone to Europe.
Before departing Buell had given his son, Benjamin, authorization to coin coppers, which he had
just begun. It is unknown where Benjamin coined his coppers. But numismatists tentatively
believe he produced the 1787 and 1788 dated Connecticut coppers which feature an obverse
with a ‘T riple Leaves" mailed bust left effigy and a reverse where the seated figure holds a “Wheat
Ear” (6).

Lawrence Wroth’s biography of Abel Buell (note 2) does not mention that Buell had a son named
William. This gave rise to a CNL Research Forum question, specifically RF-37, which asked “Did
Abel Buell Actually Have a Son Named William?” (7). CNL editor, Jim Spilman, concludes RF-
37 by asking “Is it possible that Benjamin and William Buell, considered as brothers, were actually
the same individual?”

CNL patron, Edward R. Barnsley, answered RF-37 by saying that he could not see the slightest
reason to postulate that Benjamin and William Buell were the same individual (8). But he did not
offerconclusive evidenceto support his stand. Recently, however, the authorhas uncovered new
primary source information that proves Barnsley was correct.

In April 1 791 William Buell purchased 20 acres of land from Dr. Jeremiah Durrand in Fair Haven,
Vermont (9). Fair Haven is a small town in Rutland County, approximately 24 miles north of East
Rupert. Shortly afterwards, in an advertisement in the “Vernront Gazette," dated May 30, 1791,
William informed the public that he had set up a gold and silversmith, watchmaker and jewelry
business near Colonel Matthew Lyon’s iron works in Fair Haven (1 0). The ad states that William
was from New Haven, Connecticut, which suggests he had returned to his home town after the
Rupert mint halted operations in early 1 789 (1 1 ). (A photo of the ad together with a transcription
appears in Appendix A.)

Interestingly, William’s move to Fair Haven and his location near Matthew Lyon’s iron works may
not have been by chance. Lyon, who was the leading business man in Fair Haven, was married
to Abel Buell’s niece, Beulah, a daughter of Vermont Governor Thomas Chittenden (12). Thus,
this family connection is probably what attracted William to Fair Haven.

Afew months later, both William and Benjamin Buell advertised inthe same newspaper that they
had established a button manufactory in Fair Haven. This ad, which is dated August 8, 1 791 , is
proof-positive evidence that William and Benjamin were not the same person. The ad also proves
that they were brothers because within the ad they stated ’Iheir father (among other matters) has
been to Europe to obtain a knowledge of, namely, that of making the fashionable metal coat and
vest buttons, of all kinds." (A photo of the ad together with a transcription appears in Appendix B.)

Lawrence Wroth concludes (note 2, p. 89) that Benjamin was the son of Abel and Mary Buell,
while Albert Welles (note 4) states that William was born to Abel and his second wife, Aletta. Thus,
William and Benjamin were half brothers and Benjamin was the older of the two by as rmich as
nine years.

The preceding button manufactory ad postdates Abel Buell’s return to America. With this
information, we now know that Abel returned sometime before August 8, 1791 and that his stay
in Europe was approximately two years. Also, ifwebelieve his sons, Abel went to Europe primarily
to learn the button trade, whereas others have suggested he went to flee the authorities (note 6,
p. 131 ) or to secure copper for the mint (note 2, p. 24).

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1391

No additional button manufactory ads are found in the “Vermont Gazette," up to 1 794. This may
indicate that William and Benjamin's button manufactory failed early. Around this time, theirfather
had established a cotton manufactory (note 2, p. 25) near New York City. Possibly Benjamin
joined his father in this endeavor, but William remained in FairHaven, Vermont. On Thursday April
4, 1793 William married Polly Baldwin, daughter of Captain Frederick Baldwin of Rutland,
Vermont (13). Even later, in June 1796, William advertised in the “Fair Haven Telegraph" that he
still carried on the gold and silversmith business.

One final observation. Chris Faulkner of Ottawa, Canada found that a William Buell, Loyalist from
Connecticut, had founded the city of Brockville, Ontario in 1784 (14). This individual doesn’t
appearto be William Buell the coiner. Our William Buell was only 1 2 years old in 1 784 and primary
source information unquestionably places him in Rupert and Fair Haven, Vermont later in the
century.

APPENDIX A

WILLIAM BUELL,

GOLD AND SILVER SMITH,
WATCHMAKER AND JEWELLER,

From Newhaven, in Connecticut.

HAS lately set up his business near col. Lyon’s iron works, in Fairhaven, where he performs all
kinds of work belonging in the above branches, with faithfulness, neatness and dispatch.

He makes and has for sale, silver, plated, and pinch-beck shoe and kneebuckles; jewels and
necklaces: officers silver mounted hangers; horsemen’s swords, pinchbeck mounted, and neatly
gilt; plated bridle buckles and tips; with many other articles too numerous to mention - - all which
he sells on the most reasonable terms, both as to price and mode of payment, and will make it
his constant endeavor to serve and oblige his customers.

All orders will be punctually performed, and the smallest favors received with gratitude, by the
public’s humble servant.

May 30, 1791.

WILLIAM BUELL

W I L L I A M ^ U F. L L,
GOLD and SU.VER SMITH,
IVATCH.VtAKKR AND JEWELLER,
From ^'e«haven, in Conii«aic(it.

H as ftt up hit hifintft ntar ttL LjttCt i'>n .

wtrh,' in Fnirbaotn, whtrt ht ptrfirmt-^n/l
»f tattkltUniinx it thtnint hrnncha, with fcitb-
/nbiifit ntatutfirnddi/pattb. ' t.

Htmakttandhat Jolt, plattd, ondfimh^
httk /htt tt»d knttbuctbt'i and nttUaM t '
jilvtr mtmUed hangtri t h*rjimtn't fwad>% pinthhtek
iruunltd, and nfatipgilt j pfaUd bridU kmkht and iipi i '
with manj) ether ariiela In numertut /» menlien - —alt
which he feUt an the mjt reaJinabU termt, btth at It
pritt and made tf payment, and-witlmahit hit ttnjtant
endeavar It firve and tUigt hit tnjtameru

dUbrdartwillhi puntlnaUf ptr/trmei^ and the fmaU ■
bd favtrt rttihtid with graliludt, bjlbepnilidt hunt-
bit ftrvanti

WILLIAM milL.

"<*r30» *79**--. . ' *'♦

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1392

APPENDIX B

FAIRHAVEN BUTTON MANUFACTORY.

WILLIAM AND BENJAMIN BUEL,

REQUEST the countenance and patronage of the public in general, and of the merchants of
Vermont in particular, in business, theirfather (among other matters) has been to Europe to obtain
a knowledge of, namely, that of making the fashionable metal coat and vest buttons, of all kinds.
They can assure all that incline to become their customers, that if stock is to be had, they will be
able to afford them buttons, of any pattern they wish for, on easier terms than they can be
purchased in Newyork, by the same quantity.

They have set up the business next house to Squire Safford’s tavern, in Fairhaven, where if the
merchants will send their OLD PEWTER, COPPER and BRASS, they shall receive such buttons
as they wish for, and as many, if not more, than their materials would purchase in Newyork. As
their greatest apprehension is the want of stock, they earnestly hope the patriotism, as well as the
interest of the merchant, will induce them to do all in their power with regard to the collection of
old pewter, copper and brass, and that they will take the cheapest and most direct method to
convey it to them, for which they will pay no doubt to the satisfaction of the persons taking that
trouble ; and where any person is inclined to furnish them with considerable stock, they will let them
have a larger quantity of buttons than it pays for — taking the remainder in merchant’s goods or
produce.

The GOLD AND SILVER SMITH, AND WATCH-MAKING business, is carried on by W’m Buel,
at the same place, as usual.

Fairhaven, August 8, 1791.

KAIRH.'VVEN BUTTON MANUFACTORY.

WILLIAM BENJAMIN BUEL,

R EQyEST tin nmtmma pairmafi, tf lii
futStiagniral, mitf ihmirtimli ifytrmtnt
i» fariialar, m litir faster ( amtag ester mal-

itn) hoihin it Eur$pi S 9 0 ktcin a nami»

fyf ihsti/ wuJd*^tUfBfii9m%UmrtaU9ataMytfihii^
Unty $f all iiMdt. ian ajptrt all that incUnt ti kiy
i$mt their at/fmefty that if Jink it te he hady they will
he ahli U offer i them hattenty ef any pattern they wijh
fery en eajur terthi than they ean he purthofedin Neuh
prhy hy the fame faantity.

They have fetupthe hafvuft next bettfe te ^fqaire Saf»
fefd't taveroy in Fairhauny where if the mereh'anhi
will fend their OLD PEWTER, ^COPPER emd
BRASS, they Jhallreethe faeh huttent at they wiJhfeTy
and at manfy if net merey than their materialt weald pnr*
ehafe in Sewyerk. At thei^ ireatejl appnhenfien it the
\wantef finiy they earnefly hepe thrpatrhtifmy at well
I at the interef ef the mertbanUy will induee them It 4 $ all \
in their pewer with reyard te the eelUflien ef eld pewter y
eepper and hefty and that they take the theapeft and
med direit methed te etnvejit tt iheoty fet whieh they
; will pay ne dnthte the fatitfailien ef the perms takh^
that t^enhle : and where any perfen it inelinea tt fnrttii
* them with lemfiderahle Jlecky ihiy will let them have a
laryer foantity ef htatent than it payt Jer^^ta^ing the i
remainder in tnerehantU geedt er preduee. )

n#(50LD AND SILVER SMITH, AND
Watch* MAKING huftntjty h tarried en hy W*m.
Buftt, at the fame ploity at etfual,

Fttif hutten % Ani ufl 1 791. yf*

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER

Sequential page 1393

NOTES

(1) . Crosby, Sylvesters. The Early Coins of America, 1875, pp. 188-189.

(2) . Wroth, Lawrence C. At>el Buell of Connecticut, 1958, pp. 3-4.

(3) . Sipsey, Everett T. “ New Facts and Ideas on the State Coinages,” The
Colonial Newsletter, October 1964.

(4) . Welles, Albert. The History of the Buell Family, 1881.

(5) . Hibbard, George S. Rupert. Vermait: Historical and Descriptive 1761-
1899, 1899, p. 156.

(6) . Breen, Walter. “Legal and Illegal Connecticut Mints, 1785-1789,"
Studies on Money in Early America, 1976, pp. 131-133.

(7) . The Colonial Newsletter, September 1972, p. 369.

(8) . Barnsley, Edward R. “Abel Buell’s Sons,” The Colonial Newsletter,
June 1 974, pp. 444-445.

(9) . Carlise, Lilian B. Vermont Clock. Watchmakers, Silversmiths and
Jewelers, 1970, p. 85.

(10) . The Vermont Gazette was published in Bennington, Vermont by
Anthony Haswell.

(11) . Bressett, Kenneth E. “Vermont Copper Coinage,” Studies on Money
in Early America, 1976, p. 177.

(12) . Crockett, Walter H. Vermont: The Green Mountain State, 1921,
Volume 2, p. 554.

(13) . A notice of their marriage appeared in the April 8, 1793 issue of The
Farmer’s Library, a newspaper published in Rutland, Vermont.

(14) . Faulkner, Chris. “A Lead on William Buell?,” The Colonial Newsletter,
March 1990, p. 1151.

□ □ □

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER

Sequential page 1394

THE CURRENT LOCATION
Of

THE NEW JERSEY WHATSIT

from Dennis P. Wierzba, New Providence, NJ
(TN-102B)

As a New Jersey collector, I was fascinated by the Spiro/Picker “fourth” head left variety as
illustrated in the CNL, p. 91 0. I jumped at the chance, last year, to purchase this piece from the
Tom Rinaldo collection - - even sharing the same emotions as Jacob Spiro at his time of purchase
(see Editor’s Comments, TN-102A, CNL, p. 918). As noted in the Editor’s Comments, this
amazing alteration had appeared to have been lost from the hobby. To complete the provenance
from Richard Picker, Tom Rinaldo purchasedthlspiecefromthe July 22, 1 992 Coin Galleries sale,
unappreciated in bulk lot 2577. The lot description mentions that Richard Picker believed this to
be the work of Smith of Anne (sic) Street.

The metrology is as follows: 1 21 .43 grains, 28.8mm in diameter, perfect medal or book turn. The
obverse is graded as a glossy brown AU with the D reverse graded Very Good, but an unusual
early die state with no trace of any break by the shield point. A key point, not documented earlier,
is the book turn, i.e., the horse head was upside-down before the NOVA CAESAREA, head left,
plow and 1788 were created anew from the 6 obverse.

As mentioned in TN-1 02A, a similarly altered head left NJ, lot 446, was plated In the Parmelee
Collection sale of June 1 890. This alteration kept the legend and date of the 1 4-J, but turned the
head and plow. The style of the head, the eye and plow suggest the same hand as the N J What’sit.
Lot 446 sold for $2.20. By way of comparison, two 50-f’s in fine, one double stnjck, sold for $2.75
and a lot of 14 56-n’s, good to very fine, sold for 22 cents. This coin presently resides in the
collection of CNL Patron William Anton, Jr..

The Parmelee lot description makes reference to Crosby, p.286. To quote Crosby, ’’For the
purposes of imposing 'rare varieties’ upon collectors, some unprincipled person has altered New
Jersey coins of 1786 and 1787, by engraving, or otherwise changing the facing of the horse’s
head, and in one instance, the plough also, from rightto left. No coin, having In Its original condition
the head to the left, and the date 1786, or 1787, has come to our knowledge.” [The Early Coins
of America. Sylvester S. Crosby, 1983 Quarterman reprint].

The N J What’sit clearly takes the coin engraver’s art to a higher level. As far as dating this coin,
Crosby compiled his manuscript between 1869 and 1872, with publication in the 1873 to 1875
period. Perhaps the engraver learned from the Crosby book that the head left varieties are only
dated 1 788. This would place the date of the alteration in the late 1 870’s, although possibly done
in the 1860’s. I know of no reference by Maris to this ”new variety” nor of his expected
condemnation of this type of alteration.

As far as Picker’s attribution to Smith of Ann Street, CNL Patron Peter Smith’s research has never
turned up any reference to Smith retooling any NJ copper. Apparently there were other high
quality coin engravers who never attained the "fame" of Smith of Ann Street [private correspon-
dence, Peter Smith, 6/27/93).

□ □ □

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1395

More on that “Blank Planchet”

by

Gary A. Trudgen
(TN-145B)

Shortly after my comments were published in CNL 93 (page 1369, TN-145A) concerning the
apparent residual letterson Pete Boisvert's “Blank Planchet, "he sent It to meforexamination. For
background information, Pete Informed me that he had acquired the copper disk from a big junk
lot of unpriced colonials off of a Bid Board and that this lot had been untouched since the 1 940s.
Also, he graciously stated that I could apply a surface treatment, such as Care, to the disk to
enhance viewing of the surface detail.

First, I verified the “Blank Planchet” statistics that Jim Spilman published on page 1302 of CNL.
Next, I examined the surface under various lightning, viewing angles, magnificatfon, and surface
treatment. The apparent legend letters are found on the side of the disk with the crack-like ridge,
as shown in the left photo on CNL page 1302. When looking at the photo a fragmentary string
of four letters, which follow the circumference, can be seen to the left of the crack. The string of
letters appears to be either CTOR or GIOR. If the string is CTOR. then this could be part of the
legend AUCTORI, which is Latin for“By authority of.” AUCTORI was used inthe obverse legends
of Vermont and Connecticut coppers. In addition, 1 80® around the circumference and on the same
side of the disk, there is a possible string of three other letters. These letters are very difficult to
distinguish, but they may be BAS. Noticeably, however, these three letters don't fit in with the
possible AUCTORI legend. Also. I measured a 26mm diameter across the disk from the tops of
the opposite letter strings. And I found no further evidence of other letters or design features on
either side of the disk.

The preceding observations seem to only add to the mystery of the “Blank Planchet.” If these
apparent strings of letters are truly the remains of a coin legend, then how do we account for what
appears to be hammering of the surfaces prior to when the blank was cut? (An examination of
the edge of the disk shows no uneven outward expansion which should have occurred if the disk
was hammered after it was cut.) The only explanation I can come up with is that a well worn copper
coin was hammered and then recut for some purpose other than coinage. Let’s hear from you
technical sleuths out there. What otherthoughts and explanations can you offer? Let’s solve this
mystery!

Patron DaleTrotterhasalreadyofferedhisobservations. They are asfollows:“l received CNL#93
and found it excellent as usual. I looked ba(^ on the photos of the ‘Blank Planchet’ after reading
Gary Trudgen’s letter. Could that be the bottom curl of a “C”, the foot of a “T" and an “0" before
the “R”? If so, this appears to be part of AUCTORI. What appears as the foot of the ‘T” and the
“R” both have the same shape “cleft" foot. The weight is well within Connecticut copper range.”

The “cleft" foot, which Dale mentions, is an important observation. The letter punches that were
employed to prepare coinage dies did not use split serifs, instead they used straight serifs. But
the cleft can occur during striking, due to a phenomenon know as bifurcatio n. Many 1 8th century
coppers were struck without retaining collars. Therefore, when the dies impacted the planchet
during striking, it was possible that a considerable outward flow of metal could occur from the
planchet center. The amount of flow was dependent upon striking pressure and planchet
hardness. The impression near the edge of the planchet could be carried outward by this metal
flow. If the metal flow was great enough, it split the bottom horizontal serifs of the legend letters,
carrying each side of the serif outward and creating a cleft foot. Thus, Dale’sobservation provides
additional support to the theory that the “Blank Planchet” started life as a copper coin.

a a a

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1396

“Oh, What Tangled Webs We Mortals Weave...”

The Story of the N.J. Head Left Coppers

from

Michael Hodder; Wolfboto, NH
(TN-155)

The three New Jersey varieties with the horse’s head facing left, Maris 49-f, 50-f, and 51 -g, have
always stood out as exceptional in the series. They are the only ones that were struck from
obverses whose major design element violated the norm for New Jersey coppers. Because they
were so different from the other New Jersey dies numismatic historians have tried to find some
special significance in them, some particular reason for why they were made.

The common belief is that Thomas Goadsby struck the Head Left varieties. In support of this belief
some writers have pointed to several pieces of evidence. First, the writ of execution obtained by
Goadsby against Albion Cox’s goods and chattels on November 6, 1 787, giving Goadsby control
of the Rahway Mint. Second, the writ of replevin Cox obtained on January 29, 1 788, ordering that
the goods and chattels seized by Goadsby in November be returned to Cox .

On the strength of this evidence the story of the Head Left varieties is usually told like this. Cox
owed Goadsby large sums of money advanced to keep the Rahway Mint in operation. When
Goadsby demanded payment Cox was revealed to be bankrupt. Goadsby obtained a writ against
him, Cox was thrown into debtor’s prison, and Goadsby took over the mint. Late in 1 787 or during
the early months of 1788 Goadsby struck the Head Left coppers on his own, using the Rahway
Mint’s equipment. The unique nature of the obverse design was deliberately chosen to distinguish
Goadsby’s coppers from those struck earlier at Rahway. After Cox obtained his own writ at the
end of January Goadsby was forced to vacate the Rahway Mint sometime during February, 1 788,
and coining of the Head Left coppers ceased.

This is a nice story. It fits the evidence given above and offers a tidy explanation for the distinctive
Head Left design. Unfortunately, it is incomplete. New historical evidence, which has not been
published before, paints a very different picture of what happened at the Rahway Mint while
Goadsby and Cox were fighting each other in court.

The January 29, 1788 writ of replevin that returned Cox’s goods and chattels to him, ordered by
Governor Livingston acting as Chancellor, was addressed to Essex County High Sheriff Caleb
Camp. It stated that the items to be returned included Two Iron Cutting Presses one pair of Rollers
Twelve Ingots for Casting Copper Six Hundred Wait of Blanks for making Copper pence & Sixty
I ngots of Copper and one Coini ng Press. . .” These items represented Rahway’s stock in trade and
were all the basic materials and equipment necessary for a mint.

The day after it issued Sheriff Camp executed the Chancellor’s writ of replevin against Goadsby.
We can assume that he sealed the doors against Goadsby’s further entry. Ten days later he legally

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1397

returned to Cox the items he found at the Rahway Mint in Goadsby's possession. Matthias
Ogden, acting on Cox’ behalf as his bondsman, gave Sheriff Camp a receipt for them on February
9, 1788.

The receipt read as follows:

“Received at Rahway Mills February 9th 1788 from Caleb Camp Esquire high Sheriff of
the county of Essex two Iron Cutting presses, one pair of Rollers twelve Ingot
Moulds for casting copper, four hundred and ninety four blanks for making
Copper-pence, fifty seven Ingots, jjajl of sixty Ingots of Copper, taken from Mr.
Thomas Goadsby on the thirtieth day of January seventeen hundred and eighty
eight at said Mills, by virtue of a writ of replevin against him at the suit of Albion
Cox tested the twenty ninth day of said month and returnable on the first Tuesday
in April then next before the Justices of the Supreme Court of Judicature for the
State of New Jersey at Trenton in said State

M Ogden"

These items represented everything sheriff Camp found in Goadsby’s possession at the Rahway
Mint. A comparison of the items listed in the writ of replevin and those Ogden receipted for shows
that some things ordered to be returned on January 29 were not found in Rahway 1 0 days later.
They included three ingots of copper and the difference between the 600 lbs. of planchets
mentioned in the writ and the 494 planchets actually returned. What had happened to the Ingots
and the nearly 28,000 planchets? More importantly, where was the coining press? It was listed
in the writ of replevin but was not among the items signed for by Ogden.

It appears that Goadsby transported Rahway’s coining press, the three missing ingots, and the
planchets ready for coining to Walter Mould’s mint at Morristown. On Friday, February 1 1788
William Leddel, one of Mould’s partners in the Morristown operation, wrote the following letter
addressed to Walter Mould:

“W Mold
Sir

I have informed Mr Camp the Property shall be within call at his command on
Saturday and he Assures me no new Process shall interfere with Trial but a fair and
Candid Decision shall take place, and its Consequences be duly Executed. Shall be
with you this Evening in the mean Time am Sir

Your Most Obt Sevt

W Mold Wm Leddel

Friday Evening”

Below the body of the letter was a post scriptum In Leddels’ hand, signed by Matthias Ogden:

“Col Ogden agrees that no new process shall issue on account of the property, either of
replevin or Certiorari if brought tomorrow to Chatham.

M Ogden”

The next day, Saturday, February 2 1 788, Caleb Camp presided over a sheriff’s trial between Cox
and Goadsby. The hearing was held in Timothy Day’s Tavern, located east of the stone bridge
in Chatham on the turnpike between Morristown and Elizabethtown, very near the Morris and
Essex county line. Day billed Camp for expenses Incurred in connection with the trial and received
a receiptfrom Camp reading “Reed ye 2th of february 1 788 of calib Camp Esqr 22/6 for Expenses
him Self and Juriers Between Alben Cox and Thomas Goadsbe. Rec’d by me Timothy Day.”

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER

Sequential page 1398

The “property” referred to by Leddel and Ogden in their letter to Mould was the object of disputed
possession between Cox and Goadsby. The timing of the letter and trial, coming just days after
the Chancellor's writ of replevin was awarded, suggests that the property and the trial of its
disposition were objects of the Chancellor’s writ. The reference to no new process issuing “...of
replevin...” proves that the matter at hand was part and parcel of the replevin Cox had won in
January. Could the “property" have been Rahway’s missing coining press and the copper ingots
and blanks?

In 1792, four years after the trial at Day’s Tavern, Goadsby sued Camp. Goadsby claimed that
Camp had failed to seize and sell enough of Cox’s personal property to satisfy the Novembers,
1787 writ Goadsby had won against Cox. Goadsby held Camp personally responsible for the
failure. Camp and his attorney, Matthias Williamson, made notes of all expenses Camp had
incurred in connection with the various writs he had served, as part of their defense in mitigation
of possible damages. Among these notes was an unfinished one in Camp’s handwriting which
read:

‘To costs and damages in procuring the Copper and works caried to Mom’s Town £20.
Int on 20-0 from Jan 1 788”

The copper referred to must have been the three ingots and the 600 lbs of finished blanks that were
not returned to Ogden on February 9 because they were not found at Rahway. The works
mentioned can only have been the coining press, since the cutting presses, rollers and ingot
moulds had never left Rahway.

A final piece of evidence in this puzzle is another receipt given to Camp by Ogden which slated:

“Rec’d Eliz'*'Town 3rd March 1788 of Caleb Camp Esq' three ingots of copper being
the remainder in full of the articles taken from Mr. Goadsby by a writ of replevin & those
not delivered & receipted for before.

M. Ogden”

This receipt is dated a month after the jury trial at Chatham. It also specifically referred to the
Chancellor’s writ of replevin as the authority for the receipt. It acknowledged that by March
everything ordered to be returned to Cox in January had finally been received on his behalf.
Although none of the Ogden-Camp receipts specifically mention the coining press we know from
the June, 1 788 Rule of Reference that it was then back in Rahway, so it must have been returned
earlier. It is possible that a receipt for the press at one time existed but has since been misplaced
or lost. The most likely time forthe return was shortly following the February 2 jury trial in Chatham.

From this newly published evidence it appears that the story of the Head Left coppers is somewhat
more complicated than has been supposed. At the beginning of the first week of November, 1 787
Goadsby took possession of the Rahway Mint and its equipment according to the writ he obtained
against Cox. In December he moved the coining press, three ingots of copper, and nearly 28,000
finished blanks to Mould’s Morristown Mint, leaving everything else behind in Rahway. Late in
January, 1 788 Rahway’s press was removed from Morristown to Chatham and early in February
it was returned to the Rahway Mint. By March the missing three ingots of copper had also been
returned. The 28,000 blanks still remained unaccounted for.

If Goadsby was really responsible forthe Head Left coppers they could only have been struck in
Morristown, not Rahway. But if he were, why would he need to Incur the expense of shipping a
heavy press and the other items over wintry roads to Mom’stown? Camp charged £20 costs and

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1399

damages to carry them only part of the distance between Morristown and Rahway. Leaving the
press in Rahway, where all the other heavy machinery needed for a mint was already in place,
would have been more practical if Goadsby wanted to coin coppers for his own account and profit.
It is true that Goadsby had legal possession of the Rahway Mint from Move mbe r 6, 1 787 to January
29, 1 788. It Is also true thatthe Head Left coppers are very distinctive in design. It is not necessarily
taie that these two facts point to Goadsby as the author of Maris 49-f, 50-f, and 51 -g.

We commonly assume that, since the Mould-Cox-Goadsby partnership was dissolved by
November 22, 1786, it must have ended bitterly and there were no further business relations
between Cox and Goadsby on the one hand, and Mou Id on the other. From the foregoing it appears
that there were, but we do not know much about them. For some reason Goadsby decided to ship
Rahway’s press to Mould, along with finished blanks and copper ingots. Being a businessman,
Goadsby must have had some idea that a practical purpose was served in doing so. Perhaps he
felt that Mould’s operation could benefit from having a second press and a fresh supply of finished
blanks? Perhaps he felt that he could make a profit from his action even after the expenses of
shipping the press by road had been offset? We do not know exactly why he acted as he did, and
we probably never will. We do know, however, that the Head Left coppers could not have been
coined in the Rahway Mint while Goadsby controlled the facility, because there was no coining
press there to strike them on.

What became of the nearly 28,000 finished blanks that Goadsby shipped to Morristown in
December, 1 787? There is no evidence to tell us what happened to them. Could they have been
used as planchet stock at the Morristown Mint? Since they were Rahway planchets they would
have been punched out by the Rahway planchet cutters. We knowthat Rahway’s coins are smaller
in diameterthan Morristown’s. Are there any Morristown varieties that come on smallerthan usual
flans?

The obvious candidates are the small planchet Maris 64-t’s. This variety is known on large and
small flans, the former typical of the usual Momstown diameter, the latter very atypical. Perhaps
in the small flan 64-t’s we are seeing some of the Rahway planchet stock Goadsby shipped to
Mould? Are there any other candidates? The laterdie states of obverse 6, primarily in combination
with reverse D, are found on flans noticeably smallerthan the earlier states of 6-D and most 6-C
seen. Perhaps these were also struck on Rahway planchet stock.

No mention of dies was made in the writ of replevin or Ogden’s various receipts for returned
Rahway materials. Could any of Rahway’s dies have also been shipped to Mould? The
documentary evidence does not tell us. The coins offer suggestive hints. The later states of Maris
37-X, 37-Y, 37-f, 48-g, 48-f, 49-f, and 50f (including all but one of the Head Left varieties) are found
on broad flans like Morristown’s coins, while the earlier states are found on typical Rahway
diameter flans. The later state coins could be candidates for Rahway dies on Morristown flans. I
suggested in my cataloguing of the Henry Garrett Collection (Bowers and Merena, March 26,
1992) that some Maris 48-f, 49-f, and 50-f, were struck at the Rahway Mint on Morristown flans.
The new evidence presented above shows that I got this backwardsi I should really have written
that they could have been struck at the Morristown Mint on Mon’istown flans but using Rahway
diesi This just goes to show that numismatic research is as much art as science and that no one
has written the final word on New Jersey’s coppersi

Bibliographical Note

Caleb Camp was Essex County High Sheriff during the period when New Jersey coppers were
being struck. As sheriff, he was responsible for serving all writs, empanelling juries, executing

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1400

judgements, and managing the common gaol in Newark. His actions as sheriff were carefully
scrutinized and failure to carry out his lawful duties could leave him open to suits both civil and
criminal. Therefore, like all sheriffs of his time, he kept very detailed records of the writs he
served, the outcomes of the trials they initiated, and his expenses in connection with his duties.
Most of the original documents quoted in this paper were among the Caleb Camp Family papers
formerly in the possession of the New Jersey Historical Society.

At the same time that he was writing his Fugio cents manuscript Damon Douglas was studying
New Jersey coppers. He intended to publish a history of the coinage but, atong with the Fugio
study, was unable to complete his work before his death In 1 974. In the course of his research
on New Jersey coppers Douglas saw the Caleb Camp documents and transcribed some of them.
Douglas also noted the NJHS library’s classification numbers for each document. Douglas’
transcriptions and notes about the Camp papers were preserved at the American Numismatic
Society, together with the NJHS library call numbers.

Despite several careful searches during 1 989-1990 the Camp papers could not be found in the
NJHS library; their card file listings were also missing. It appears likely that someone who
recognized their importance removed both the Camp papers and what he thought were the only
records of their existence, the NJHS library card file listings. The present whereabouts of these
important documents are presently unknown. Should they ever surface they will be easily
identified.

Michael Hodder

from ye Editor

Over the years ye Editor has personally encountered a number of very
similar problems of missing papers, or books, or documents, or even
dies and coins from specialized collections. Unfortunately, it is not an
uncommon problem. In ye Editor’s case persistence paid off and a
numberof missing items were located and returned to their place within
the collections. In at least two cases the custodians did not realize that
the items were absent. There is actually little wonder that, today,
anyone who desires to research an area within the historical docu-
ments collections around our Nation finds a considerably less than
cordial welcome when he expresses his interest to those in charge of
the collections.

In a recent discussion with the Head Librarian of a large University I was
told that the problem of theft was so bad that they did not even want to
discuss the details, but that with the application of new technological
devices such as computerized cardfiles, video recording and alarm
tags, the problem has been considerably reduced in scope. JCS

□ □ □

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1401

ASK the EDITORS

AB-1 The Stepney Hoard

We have received some ad-
ditional Information on
AE- 1 Ihe Stephney Hoard
from Eric P. Newman of
St. Louis Missouri

The answer of editor Michael J. Hodder to
the question about the contents of the
Stepney or Fairfield Hoard Indicated that
there were no Machlns pieces In the group.
(CNL July 1993, p. 1372) That comment
was probably caused ly my own ambiguity
about 35 years ago. I had stated that there
were 72 counterfeit British and Irish
halfpence in the Hoard. This was before
Machlns pieces were listed. Hodder rea-
sonably Interpreted this as meaning coun-
terfeit British and Irish made halfpence
whereas I meant counterfeit British and
Irish style halfpence.

The 72 counterfeit British and Irish style
halfpence in the hoard were sent to me on
approval by Walter Breen when he was
working for Stack’s. I selected 10 or 12
pieces at $5 to $10 each and returned the
balance. These prices seemed enormous
to me at the time, but among the pieces I
bought were the 1 776 Machlns featured In
"The VermontNumlsmatlc Enigma" (Vlack
9-76B); a 1778 Machlns uncirculated red
brown (11-78A); a 1787 uncirculated red
brown (19-87C); a 1 787 uncirculated some
red (17-87^; a 1788 uncirculated red
brown (23-88^; and perhaps a 1787 un-
circulated full red (20-87C). I do not
remember the date of purchase but could
go mining In ny files to try to find out If that
becomes of Interest. It had to be before my
1 958 “Enigma" article and even could have
been before Breen’s 1952 Hoard article.

Ned Barnsley In his 1962 comment on the
pieces In the Hoard was correct about
Machlns pieces being present. Although

he used the word “Burjgtowns" Instead of
“evasions" that was then customary. I
tried to define the meaning of the word
“Bungtown" In 1976.

This all shows how continual research and
writing can add to accuracy.

Eric P. Newman

from ye Editor

Mr. Newman's comments regarding the
condition of his specimens plus the com-
ments of Mike Hodder hi the previous
Issue that "Some collectors have ques-
tioned whether there ever was a find of
colonial era coppers near Stepney, CT."
brings to mind an observation made by
Ned Barnsley to me many years ago. Ned’s
belief was that the "Stepney Hoard was a
fraud."

This harsh Judgement was based, he told
me, on his opinion that no matter how well
protected, no copper coins could have sur-
vived being burled In a barnyard for 162
years and still retain the pristine surface
condition exhibited by many of the speci-
mens!

There can be no doubt that the Stepney
Hoard was In fact a remarkable accumula-
tion of early American coppers uncovered
at a time when none of them had any
significant monetary value In the numis-
matic marketplace. Whether or not the
source of the specimens 'beneath a Stepney
bam" Is accurate wfil never be known with
certainly! JCS

The following are two additional

Inputs on AE-3 and AE-6 from

Associate Ekiltor Mike Hodder.

AE-3. What happened to Hall's collec-
tion of Connecticuts?

After working recentty with Hlllyer Fader’s
collection of Connecticuts perhaps I can
shed some more light on the problem of the
disposition of Hall’s collection. Hall’s own
notebooks include an inventory listing of

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1402

his collection of Connectlcuts by variety.
The Inventory seems to have been done
circa 1898, by which time Hall had about
300 coins. Hall also noted how many dif-
ferent specimens of each variety he had
seen, the total being about 2,000 in all.
Brand bought 356 Connectlcuts, probabty
Hall’s mainline collection Intact. The Con-
necticut State Library was given 126
Connectlcuts by Matthew Shumway in
1919, said to have been Hall’s, together
with the Hall notebooks. 'There are Con-
necticut coppers known with Hall attribu-
tions painted on their edges, and others
with Hall numbers painted on their ob-
verses. I suspect that those with edge
painting are ex Hall’s mainline collection,
the others possibly being pieces he once
owned but later traded or sold, or else they
were coins he attributed for friends. There
are, for example, 160 Connectlcuts in the
I^der collection, pedigreed back to Dr.
Hall, many of which were purchased from
Elder’s 1920 Miller sale. Some have edge
painted attributions, others have obverse
painted Hall numbers, some have neither.
Some of these were, undoubted^, in Hall’s
mainline collection at one time. It seems to
me that Hall’s name was “magic" then as
now and, if a coin had passed through
Hall’s hands, even if only for attribution or
recording Its variety, it was ascribed to his
“collection". 'The problem of exactly which
particular Connectlcuts were actualty in
Hall’s first collection Is still unsettled. We
need to compare the conditions of edge
painted coins to the condition notes in
Hall’s notebooks, to see if any correlations
are possible. We need to record the num-
ber of edge painted coins known per vari-
ety and compare that with the number
Hall wrote he owned in his first collection.
We also need to be sure that there are no
faux Hall coins floating around! MJH

AE>^ "Money Changers" - - How were
Confederation era coppers distributed
(raised by Phil Mossman in his answer to
AE-6.)

For some years I’ve been working on the
problem of how the private mlnters of

Connectlcuts, New Jersey’s, and Vermont’s
got their coins into circulation. After a lot
of thought, and finding absolutely no con-
temporary evidence, I’ve come to the con-
clusion that we may never know for sure.
However, here are my best guesses. I sus-
pect that the mlnters sold their coins whole-
sale, by the barrel-load, to Jobbers who
could move the coppers to grocers, local
doctors and lawyers (i.e., then, as now,
society’s elite), and wholesale distributors
of hardware and other finished goods. For
New Jersey’s, I suspect that there was a
wholesale market selling to those who had
bills to pay the state, which accepted the
coppers at a very favorable rate for just
such transactions. I don’t imagine a long
line of customers at the back doors of the
mints waiting for their shiny new coppers
to be coined (although a precedent for just
thiscanbe foimd at the US Mint later when
small cents were finally coined during the
Civil War!). Maybe one part of Goadsl^’s
job was to move coppers into circulation?
Neither Mould, Cox, nor Ogden were famil-
iar with business as a profession. If I’m
right in my guess, then the profits accru-
ing to the mlnters would necessarily be
much lower than has been postulated hi
the past. MJH

Here Is a new inquiry from CNL
Patron Donald G. Robinson of
West Brookfield, MA;

AE-7 Die Orientation of London
Elephant Tokens

Recently I bought a London elephant to-
ken (thick planchet) slght-imseen at auc-
tion. After receiving the piece I was some-
what surprised to note that the die axis is
360° (medal turn).

Is this orientation normal for the type? If
so— since this is a deviation from the norm
for the vast majority of colonials— why
Isn’t this fact mentioned In reference books?

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1403

AE-7 Mike Hodder and Gary Trudgen

both repfy that medal turn seems to be
normal for the reverse orientations of el-
ephant tokens of all kinds. Including Lon-
don, Carolina, and New England.

Axis measurements aren’t usualty recorded
or mentioned in the standard texts on
early American coins. Luckily, the cata-
loguer of the Norweb Collection specimens
did note this parameter for each of the 1 1
tokens In that sale (October, 1987, lots
1227- 1237). Measurements taken showed
axes for all in the 355-15 degree range,
fairly regular medal turn. There were no
obvious distinctions visible between thick
or thin planchet stocks, nor between Lon-
don and Carolina or New England variet-
ies.

So, It appears that medal turn may well be
the norm for these. In fact. If you’re ever
offered an elephant token whose reverse Is
not so oriented, you might want to Insist
upon authentication before buying it!

And here Is another new
Inquiry from BUI Snyder
of CookvUle, TN

AE^8 Spanish Crowns with NE
Countermarks

Writing about Massachusetts silver
(EARLY AMERICAN COINS), Mr. Robert
Vlack says: “A point to mention is that on
October 8, 1672, NE dies were authorized
to have been used to counterstamp other
coinage for circulation In the Colonies to
indicate they were of full weight and good
silver, but no coins are available to prove
this act was put Into effect. “

There are at least 3 coins available.

The first piece in the
Hans M. F. Schulman auction.
April 19S1

The first piece, lot # 9, In a large collection
of Spain crowns) was described as “Philip
III 1598-1617, Same 1617 Seville Modem
Round Style EXF. Counterstamped NE as
on New England Coins (plate)".

(There must have been a misprint, as
the plate clearly shows the aque-
duct mint mark of Segovia, not
Sevaie).

This Spanish coin appeared again In a
Coin Galleries auction In November, 1990.
This time. It was Included with Colonial
copies. Mr. Richard Picker before his
death, had written “authenticity question-
able and not guaranteed” on the holder of
what was to be lot #2548. The cataloger
added “Possibly a collector creation of the
19th Century. “

The second piece also in the
Hans M. F. Schulman auction.
April 19S1

The second NE piece in the Schulman
auction was lot 201 “Bolivia (Potosl Mint)
Phil. IV 1621-1665 - 1659 PUlars - CSPD.
NE (Plate) EXF (30.00)"

(The plates show both coins with
what appear to be identical
raised, linked block letters (NE)
within a 1/4" circular cartouche).

The third piece is in the
Henry Christensen Auction.
December. 197S

“Charles II. lot 572 POTOSL 8 R 1667 E..
26.675 grams. Very Flne+, FuU Round,

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER

Sequential page 1404

pierced at 3:00, eind with an NE c/m on
obverse In 2nd quarter of shield. The NE c/m is
of unknown origin. Burzio refers It on a
piece from Potosi dated 1659 and offered
in a Hans Schulman auction, ^rll 1951,
lot No. 201. EJven without this c/m this
1667 piece should bring (750.00- 1000.00) .”

(The countermark shown is very
stmilar to those on thejtrst two
coins. The Christensen photo,
however, is not quite sharp, so it is
hard to be sure that all 3 coins
were impressed with the same
punch).

Questions - -

(1) Can anyone shed more light on these

pieces?

(2) Are there more?

(3) Does the NE signify something In

Spain or Bolivia

l.e. - have nothing to do with

Massachusetts)?

4) Did some 19th century entrepreneur
make a NE stamp? Where Is It,
and where did he find two hun
dred year old, hl^ grade
crowns?

AB-8

Reply

from Mike Hoedder

Spanish crowns with NE cormterstamps.
These are all fraudstt None are genuine! I
haven’t yet seen one with an NE punch that
corresponds to any of those found on the
regular Issue coins.

Check out Strobrldge’s sale of the Cky
Collection (1871), lots 72, 73, and 75. The
last is a Noe-1 Pine shilling with an NE
coimterstamp at the base of the obverse. It
appeared later In Mehl’s sale of November,
1954, where Mrs. Norweb bought It. I cata-
logued It as lot 1192 of the Norweb sale. Yes,
someone had made one or more NE punches
In the 19th century and created Interesting
pieces for collectors.

Yes, high quality Spanish 17th and 18th
century crowns were available for this pur-
pose then and their values sold as “NE"
Issues would have beenhlgherthan without
the fabricated counterstamps.

Hope this helps a bit. BflJH

The

Editorial

Roundtable

AB-8

Reply

from Phil Mosman

There is a fourth piece with such a
counterstamp In the A.N.S. collection. It Is
on a very nice 1663 Potosi el^t reales but
the “NE” coimterstamp looks Uke a modem
day fabrication. It Is Just too “clean”

This piece will be Illustrated In Chapter three
of my book and I’m sorry that I do not have
an Individual picture to send you. My
comment Is that this represents a fake
counterstamp onagenulne coin. It would be
InterestlngtocompareaUfourstamps to see
If they are the same. PLM

Editorial

Roundtable

Our sincere thanks to CNL Patron Andrew
W. Pollock in of Wolfeboro Falls, NH for his
donation to the CNL Library of a copy of his
new reprint of John Hull, A Builder of the
Bay Colony, by Hermann Frederick Clarke.
John Hull Is, of course, best known to
numismatists as the proprietor of the 17th
century mint where the pine tree shilling
were manufactured. He was also, however,
a leading colonial silversmith, merchant,
and magistrate. Clarke explores all these
aspects of Hull’s life In detail. The original

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLEHER

Sequential page 1405

edition of five hundred copies, published in
1940, was distributed mostly to those hav-
ing an Interest in early American silverware
andl7th-centurycolonlalhlstoiy. Pollock’s
1993 reprint is quality hardbound, and
has 223 pages and 16 plates. Copies are
available for $37 . 50 postpaid from Pollock’s
Books, 290 High Street, Duxbury, MA
02332.

As ye Editor browsed through this very
interesting book he encountered a para-
graph on page 33 which is of particular
interest considering the "shortages" of coin,
especially silver, in those days! It is re-
printed below:

JOHN HULL text Page 33

“During the first decade of the life of
the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the
population Increased apace as sub-
stantial numbers of Englishmen
took part in the “Great Migration."
The newcomers, well supplied with
money, exchanged it for cattle and
products of the soil with those who
had preceded them, and became
established. The Colony flourished
and grew rich during a decade of
prosperity, which in turn was fol-
lowed by the economic crisis of
1640- 1641 , the result of the cessa-
tion of immigration. After this crisis
came the growth of an extensive
commercial Intercourse with the
West Indies, the Canaries, and the
countries of Southern Europe, as
well as the Mother Country. The
merchants and sea captains
brought back coin of all descrip-
tions and Ingots of silver from the
Spanish Main. Prosperity returned,
the aesthetic desire began to ex-
press Itself, and the stage was thus
set for the colonial silversmith to
introduce the craft in colonial
America. The influx of foreign sliver
coin provided the raw material.
Those who came into possession of

the metal sought to have it
fashioned into articles for the
adornment of their homes,
which in the decade from 1640
to 1650 began to contain marty
of the luxuries to which some
of the Puritans had been ac-
customed before leaving En-
gland. Silver converted into
beakers, tankards, or porrin-
gers did not corrode or depre-
ciate; also, these articles were
not so easily stolen as coin or
bullion. The silversmith was
somewhat akin to the banker
of today, and John Hull, In
adopting the craft of a silver-
smith, took the first step to-
wards his diversified career of
silversmith, merchant, mint-
master, and banker, as well
as valued and honored public
servant." JCS

Here are some com-
ments by Mike
Hodder on‘IW-13 lA
(page 1385) in the
previous issue:

I compared my database listings
against Phil Mossman’s tabulations
of the most commonly seen Confed-
eration era coppers and I find some
agreement and some differences. Like
Phil, I find the single most common
coin in my lists is 1787 NJ Marls
56-n; I now count 154 pieces. The
next in line is M. 64-t, with 83 listed;
then come M. 46-e, 76 coins; 1787 CT
Miller 4-L with 69; and M.33.7-r.2,
with 46 pieces. I think Phil and I
agree that the same varieties are in
the “most common" category. Where
we differ in the order of ranking Is to
be explained by the fact that I stopped
recording 4-L’s unless they were ei-
ther in outstanding condition (fairly
common) or an unusual die state
(very rare). I would reverse his order
for CT 33.7-r.2 and the NJ varieties

October 1993

THE COLONIAL NEWSLETTER

Sequential page 1406

46-e (Rahway) and 64-t (Morristown, the
smaller ones on Rahway stocy. This Is
really nit-picking, however. Phil’s point is
well taken: there are several CT and NJ
varieties that make up a disproportion-
ately large percentage of the total number
of aU surviving state coppers. Phil and I
have discussed this before. He first sug-
gested that the robustness of M.56-n, its
long and very hard life, needs some spe-
cial explanation. MJH

And. in addition, some
thoughts regarding Gary
Trudgen’s concepts In
TN-151A (page 1387):

Gary’s provisos about the maity param-
eters that can affect how a punch shape
looks on a struck coin are well done.
However, I have difficulty knowing how a
researcher is to be able to distinguish with
precision between the same punch ap-
plied differently from different punches
applied the same way! The enlarged plates
In my CNL study of the 1787 Immunls
Columbia and the so-called Atlee broken
A suggested to some readers, not un-
skilled In their die varieties, that maybe
more than one A punch was involved!
Clearly, with this kind of uncertainty, due
to the factors Gary so ably outlined, per-
haps we should re-thlnk punch linkages
as sure numismatic evidence?

Patrons maybe aware that I am extremely
skeptlced of the single punch set owned by
one itinerant die sinker theory. In this
regard, Peter Gaspar has recently written
a study (In MetaUwgy In NumisTmtics,
V.33 that shows that Identical letter and
number punches were mass produced
from identical matrices in the mints of
London, Edinburgh, France, and possibly
Spain starting In the late 17th century.
Craig, In his history of the Royal Mint,
wrote that in London mass production of
identical punches was the norm from
1700, onwards. It’s my belief that the
punch links we have been finding across
different coin series are really only evi-

dence of a single source for mass produced
punches, possibly a New York City im-
porter who bought his supply wholesale In
London or Birmingham, maybe Paris, and
sold setshere in America. This lattertheory
needs work. However, the facts that mass
production of coin die punches was the
norm In Europe’s biggest mints; and that
American silver and goldsmiths routinely
bought their punches from London sell-
ers; suggest to me that coin die punches
were also bought from London sources
and were mass produced. If typography Is
any parallel, complete sets of letters and
numerals were sold. MJH

...and from ye Editor:

There seems to be a very basic problem of
misunderstanding among most numisma-
tists with whom, over the years, I have
discussed the subject of coinage punches.
The best way to illustrate this problem, I
believe. Is to ask two questions as follow -
- If you were to go to the hardware store,
today, and purchase an ordinary set of the
steel letter punches that are readily avail-
able In several sizes, could you use them to
(question 1) punch the lettering Into a
coinage die? Or - (question 2) could you
use them to sink a mold for the casting of
printing type?

Well - - are your answers YES or NO? Ye
Editor will continue this discussion in the
next issue. Replies to these two questions
wlUbeappreclatedfromourPatrons. JCS

ODDS and ENDS

The “New Jersey" 14-J of 1788 mentioned
in the previous issue ^ould have been
reported as Massachusetts 14-J of 1788!
Sony for the typo; ye Editor somehow
converted “New I^der 14-J” Into “New
Jersey 14-J”. This extremely rare “Fat
Indian” specimen, now the fourth known,
was plated and described In Lot 1116 of
Stack’s Public Auction Sale of
September 8.9, 1993 where it realized a
hammerprlce of $3,800.00. JCS